2013Annual Use of Force Report Page 1

TO:Barrie Police Services Board

FROM:Chief Kimberly Greenwood

DATE:February 12, 2014

SUBJECT:2013 Annual Use of Force Report

BACKGROUND

Provincial Adequacy Standard #AI-012 requires thatthe Chief of Police report annually to the Board on the use of force by members of the Service.

“Use of Force” reports are required to be submitted by every member of the Service who uses force in any one of the following situations:

  • A firearm is drawn in the presence of a member of the public (excluding other police officers or auxiliary members while on duty or a "ride along" observer);
  • A firearm is pointed at any person;
  • A firearm is discharged;
  • A weapon other than a firearm, including a weapon of opportunity is used on another person;
  • A Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) is pointed at a subject to gain compliance; and,
  • Physical force is used on a person resulting in an injury requiring medical attention.

Statistics on the use of force are maintained by the Training Unit. The statistics are compiled from the review, evaluation and analysis of mandated “Use of Force” reports.These Use of Force reports are collected and used only to identify individual and group training requirements, or organizational Use of Force policy requirements.

Officers interact on a daily basis with members of the public in which their issues and concerns are resolved without having to use force at a level that would require the submission of a report as indicated above. There are also times when the interactions are dynamic and more than one use of force option may be required to control and resolve the situation.

USE OF FORCE MODEL

The Province of Ontario provides police services in Ontario with a standard “Use of Force Model.” This model depicts the use of force options which are appropriate based on the situation the officer encounters. The model considers that the same situation faced by different officers may lead to the use of different force options based on the perception of the officers and their individual characteristics. It does not mandate single specific force options; rather it providesa range of options that may be appropriate for the situation based on the subjectbehaviours.

SUBJECT BEHAVIOURS

Co-operative

The subject responds appropriately to the officers’ presence, direction and control.

Resistant (Passive)

The subject refuses, with little or no physical action, to cooperate with the officer’s lawful direction.

Resistant (Active)

The subject uses non-assaultive physical action to resist. The subject refuses to comply with the officer’s lawful direction.

Assaultive

The subject attempts to apply, or applies force to any person; attempts or threatens by an act or gesture to apply force to another person.

Serious Bodily Harm or Death

The subject exhibits actions that the officer reasonably believes are intended to or likely to cause serious bodily harm or death to any person.

USE OF FORCE OPTIONS

Officer Presence

While not strictly a use of force option the simple presence of an officer can affect both the subject and the situation.

Communication

An officer can use verbal and non-verbal communication to control and/or resolve the situation.

Physical Control (Soft)

Control oriented techniques including restraining techniques, joint locks and non-resistant handcuffing.

Physical Control (Hard)

Techniques intended to stop a subject’s behaviour or allow application of a control technique. Hard control has a higher probability of causing injury and includes empty hand strikes such as punches and kicks.

Intermediate Weapons

Force option that involves the use of a less-lethal weapon. Less lethal weapons are those whose use is not intended to cause serious injury or death.

Lethal Force

The use of a force option involving any weapon or technique intended toor reasonably likely to cause serious bodily harm or death.

2012/2013 USE OF FORCE STATISTICS ANALYSIS

It should be noted that the “Use of Force” reports do not capture the vast majority of police/subject interactions which are resolved without having to use force at a level requiring the submission of a “Use of Force”report.Situations involving use of force are dynamic and many involve the use of more than one use of force option.

  • The total number of reportsdecreased from 2012 to 2013.

2013: 49 incidents reported(1 of which to destroy an animal)

2012: 77 incidents reported(5 of which to destroy animals)

  • Communication was effective in resolving a number of incidents in 2013(in conjunction with other uses of force).

2013: 12 effective of 49 incidents(24%)

2012:17 effective of 67 incidents (25%)

  • Physical control had a decrease in incidentsand the effective rate declined.

2013: 3 effective of 14 incidents(21%)

2012: 22 effective of 45 incidents(48%)

  • Aerosol use had a decrease in incidents but continues to be effective when applied on its recipients.

2013: 3 effective of 3 incidents(100%)

2012: 5 effective of 7 incidents(71%)

The uses of Intermediate Weapons hasincreased slightly in 2013, but continues to be highly effective

  • Impact Weapons(Batons)

2013: 2 effective of 2 incidents(100%)

2012: 1 effective of 2 incidents(50%)

  • Conducted Energy Weapons (CEW)

2013: 23 effective of 24 incidents(95%)

2012: 18 effective of 19 incidents(94%)

  • ARWEN

2013: 0 effective of 0 incidents

2012: 0 effective of 0 incidents

  • Canine

2013: 1 effective of 1 incident(100%)

2012: 5 effective of 5 incidents(100%)

The use of Lethal Force generally involves the display or discharge of a firearm. A firearm was drawn or pointed at a person on 16 occasions in 2013. The actual discharges of firearms in 2013 were solely for the purpose of the destruction of one injured or suffering animal. A marked decrease in the use of a firearm was noted in 2013.(57%)

  • Drawn/Pointed

2013: 15 effective of 16 incidents(93%)

2012: 26 effective of 29 incidents(89%)

  • Firearms Discharges (animals)

2013: 1 effective of 1 incident(100%)

2012: 5 effective of 5 incidents(100%)

  • The number of suspects involved in use of force incidents saw adecrease from 2012 to 2013. The number of suspects with weapons decreased slightlyin 2013, however, the percentage of armed suspects remained the same from 2012.

2013: 10 suspects with weapons of total of 60 suspects(16%).

2012: 14 suspects with weapons oftotal of 90 suspects(15%)

Injuries to Officers

  • The number of injuries to Officers and suspects has decreased in 2013.

2013 – 3 Officers injured(23% decrease)

2012 – 13 Officers Injured(86% increase)

Injuries to Suspects

2013: 14 Suspects injured(42% decrease)

2012: 33 Suspects Injured(3% increase)

Intermediate weapons are the most effective when dealing with actively resistant/ assaultive subjects.Use of force training covers all of the use of force options provided to all members of the Service annually by our Training Unit. The rates of effective deployment and relative moderate injury rates indicate members are able to use their knowledge, skills and abilities effectively when confronted with a situation requiring the use of force.

CONDUCTED ENERGY WEAPONS

The Barrie Police Service has equipped officers with “TASER” Conducted Energy Weapons since 2004 after the Ministry approved the use of the weapon by members of containment/tactical teams and front line supervisors.

All officers that carry the CEW are initially required to be trained and qualified in the weapon and they must also re-qualify annually. All training and administration of the CEW program is the responsibility of our Training Unit.

From a Barrie Police Service perspective, it has allowed us to confirm with our community that our user training and CEW maintenance exceeds not only the manufacture’s recommended standards, but exceeds the practice of some Canadian police agencies.

OPERATIONAL DEPLOYMENT STATISTICS

Applications

The 2013statistics revealed an increasein the application of the Conducted Energy Weapon. The CEW, when used in the display mode, continues to be an effective option in resolving situations.

Reporting

As in previous years, whenever an officer deploys a CEW during the course of his/her duties, there is an attached reporting requirement. AProvincial Use of Force report is required. There are four deployment types, display, spark test, drive stun, or probe deployment. As such, the deployment stats are listed under those four types. Also recorded is whether or not the application was successful in bringing the situation to a peaceful end.

2013Annual Use of Force Report Page 1

CEW Usage – 2013

Type Usage Success

Display 8 8

Spark 0 0

Drive Stun 6 6

Probe 10 9

Total 24 23

CEW Usage – 2012

TypeUsage Success

Display 7 6

Spark 0 0

Drive Stun 5 5

Probe 7 7

Total 19 18

2013Annual Use of Force Report Page 1

In 2013CEW usage resulted in 8 display only events of which8resulted in compliance(100%). The CEW was actually deployed (either drive stun or probe mode) a total of 16 times. Of the 16 deployments, 6 of 6 drive stun deployments were successful in gaining compliance while 9 of 10 probe deployments aided in gaining compliance.

Kimberly Greenwood

Chief of Police